Federer, Serena, Steffi, Sampras, Martina and Nadal hit a stall on majors between age 28 and 34. Djoker is pushing the envelope but only so far.

I mean who's going to beat Djokovic in a match? Really. LOL.

I mean fair play but let’s see what happens in the states.

Hopefully a turning point and players stop bottling it, best of 5 a different kettle of fish though.

Yeah I mean anyone who says Djokovic is 100% to win a match and doesn't put a large chunk of their net worth betting on that is a hypocrite. Ofc there's a non-zero chance he loses any given match. Injuries are a *****. Let's hope he recovers in time for the USO.

He's real close to done as dominant if the history of the world is relevant.

Between the ages of 28 and 34, Nadal won 6 slam titles and Serena won 10

Hey dumbarse ... Djoker is 34. All of the above had tapered off in majors by 35, some at 28. Get the wax out of your ears and say something sensible.

As advertised it fell short. I took 2/1 against him in last two matches, on top of field versus him going in, on top of hedge in 5th set in semis. All pure. Super run, Djoker, this year and career. He'll never be that dominant force again. That's three losses lately. Won't win Australian either. I like the guy a lot, don't understand the backlash against him at all. Then again maybe he rallies in his favorite stomping ground Melbourne to hit 21. But his win rate over next 12 majors won't resemble his last 10 years, imo. He's pushed it about as far as it can be pushed.

I do think he has passed Fed and it goes Djoker/Fed/Nadal. Odd about Fed, he was so dominant and regal, floating around out there as if over the sport, like DiMaggio in a sense, but his tennis, belied by his results in a sense, was never as great or dominant as Novak. You get influenced by the magical angle of Federer's game, but it doesn't match Djoker's imo.

Novak put up big numbers in the AO, which is a distant fourth as a grand slam, so he's really third when judged by accomplishments, which is not the way to judge these things.

Djokovic's win rate aged 34y 8m to 37y 8m won't resemble that from the last 10 years?

Amazing prediction. Where can we sign up for your training course?

Because I was rebuking those on here saying just the opposite ... "gonna do this two or three more years" of utter dominance, and what possible reason could I have to think he wouldn't, with me saying, "Look at his age!!" Now here comes you informing me of his age. Read the thread. I said no before it ended then it ended immediately in the last two key events. It's over. It went from 21-0 in key events to what 8-3 losing the first set 5 times in a row? He went 18-9 in sets in this tourney, 2-5 in first sets? That is major, major slippage. On cue.

And yes, you should bet everything I hint at. That's the course.

He slipped as his body got beat down later in the season. He's struggled with would tour finals for a long time because it's late in the season and Rafa never won that one for the same reason. Yes he's old and and physically worn out from dominating from years, and might he collapse next year or he might win more than one slam if he recovers well in the off season. Stop pretending you can tell the future and stop pretending "34yo will play worse at the end of the season" is some kind of a savant prediction, it's really cringe, especially given that he made it to the FINALS and it took the world number TWO playing lights out to stop him.

That has been an interesting angle that Aussie is creating his resume as GOAT, but though it is admittedly less a "big deal" than the others, is it harder to win, or is it less impressive to win it than the others? Maybe. It seems more the factor MRNO mentions of freshness ... first major the best player when fresh is obv. less vulnerable to field. As attrition sets in, things move toward increased parity.

Funny I'm now being accused of stating the obvious with his age, when it began with me pointing up his age against the blind anticipation that surely it will continue.

3-5 in sets in his last two matches. It looks like he was 63-13 in sets first 3 majors, 18-9 in US Open. He lost two first sets not in tiebreakers in the first 3, 4 times in the US Open. This seems to argue both for the fatigue and the closing of the gap right from the first set, first match.

I was making the point that all the gods -- Fed, Nadal, Sampras, Steffi, Serena, Martina -- had lost their dominance by 35, several long before that. Djoker was 34 pushing 35 trying the impossible. It figured to implode and it imploded. Twice.

I hope he distances it. It is a photo between him and Fed with Rafa third, in my book. Amazing era.

Sure the AO might be the least prestigious slam, but that's a pretty stupid way to downgrade him. This isn't the '80s and '90s when players actually didn't play it; everyone is there.

I don’t know what others have said but I’ve said from the start that he may collapse tomorrow or have a few good years left. We can’t tell the future and it’s silly for anyone to pretend they can. Fed still hopes he can win one more Wimbledon at 40 years of age.
And this is the first time I’m hearing from anyone that AO is "less worthy" than the others.

Will Tiger win a major this year? Will Djoker win the Grand Slam in 2038? Oh, you can see into the future? Better temper that. Everyone can see into the future and they do it all the time. Some much more so than the norm on given subjects. Check.

It's not as stupid as those that downgrade Rafa for winning at RG.

Rafa just turned 35. He's only a year older than Novak.

It's 1. Novak 2. Rafa distant 3. Federer

Bad faith argument. You're setting yourself up for a lot of ridicule if Novak wins 2+ slams next year.

Well then I must have set myself up for praise when he lost the last two key events in the 5-slam. But don't bother with that, go straight to the "IF he wins later you will look bad" argument. Bad faith back at you. As of now he is 0-2 in the last two "majors" since I raised the point, after winning 7 of the last 10 in which he wasn't DQed. That's called nailing it with perfect timing.

The seeing the future thing is not bad faith. The line here is much blurrier than when represented by statements such as "no one can see the future." In fact we all function by assuming we can do that. It's called a prediction. As to whether such seeing is 100% accurate esp. in close calls, such is a ridiculous, fantastical, absurd, misleading standard.

How idiotic to compare Olympic tennis with a grand slam tournament.

If Djokovic wasn't going for a golden grand slam, the Olympics would have been utterly meaningless to him. Nice to win a medal, very nice to win gold, but meh if you don't.

Federer hasn't won singles gold and I'm sure he doesn't lose any sleep over it.

And since he was going for a golden slam, the Olympics were big to him and he lost twice. Because his dominance is slipping and even melting down at times. Go fish and stay out of my pots.

Why's Rafa over Fed??

If Novak doesn't win AO, RAFA will have another shot at being in the lead with 21 if he can win the French, which I find pretty fun and want to see happen.

It's not hard to make those predictions because any player is less likely to not win a given tournament than to win it
He made it to semis and finals before he lost. He didn't spectacularly crash out in round 2. Doomsaying would make sense if he got beaten in straight sets in round 2 by a literal who but that's not what happened. Guess we'll see what happens..